When does "Art" cease to be "Art"?

[citoyen]

If you think it's art, it probably is art.

I'd go one further: if you find yourself questioning whether or not it is art, it almost certainly is art.

Also, +1 to nicknack's comment - not only does it not matter, it's really not that interesting a question either.

[Ian H]

I blame Marcel Duchamp.

[Ham]

yeah, he just took the pee

[Ian H]

yeah, he just took the pee

He didn't.  It wasn't plumbed in.

[mattc]

As well ask, "When does art start to be art?"

After the s and t?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Glitter balls are the answer.

[citoyen]

The peasants are revolting...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.lindependant.fr/amp/2018/04/24/carcassonne-loeuvre-de-felice-varini-victime-dun-acte-de-malveillance,3918150.php

[ian]

Glitter balls are the answer.

I have a glitter ball in my garden. Drives the cats mental.

[Mr Larrington]

Modern art is what happened when painters stopped looking at girls.
</philistine>

[mrcharly-YHT]

For me, something is art when it is:
1) intended to be art
2) communicates something to me

The communication does not have to be pleasurable, emotional, or in fact make any sense whatsoever. If it has an impact on me, it is significant. It 'works' as a piece of art, whether I enjoy it or not.

This post is art. I intend it to be art, and it's communicating to you the fact that I intend it to be art.   

It only works as a piece of art when the recipient feels that it has communicated something to them.

Two weeks ago I went to an exhibition that displayed art from 3 artists. The work by one of the artists, who is highly proclaimed, didn't 'work' for MrsC or me.

[Ben T]

It only works as a piece of art when the recipient feels that it has communicated something to them.

Two weeks ago I went to an exhibition that displayed art from 3 artists. The work by one of the artists, who is highly proclaimed, didn't 'work' for MrsC or me.

... which is basically the same as saying the definition of art is entirely subjective. i.e. whether something's art is a matter of individual opinion. Yes?

It's a valid viewpoint, but I'm not sure it's one I entirely agree with as it lends itself to the possibility for individuals to basically form the viewpoint that only good art, or art that they personally like, is art.
It basically suggests that you can call something 'not art' just because you don't like it. To me that's not the case.


So in your opinion, was the "art" from the artist that you didn't like - was it not art, or simply bad art?

[Ian H]

When art came to America.

[citoyen]

When art came to America.

A mere 105 years ago. Give it another 105 years and people might start to accept that not all 'art' has to be in the form of paintings representing real people, objects or scenes, framed and hung in galleries.

[T42]

I reckon that art ceases to be art when it becomes marketing, à la "if I do X the punters'll pay millions".

The fashion for art to try to stretch the definition of art and thus be as tenuous as possible stems from the desire to make afficionados feel exclusive. i.e. there's an imperative to make the cultured feel like they appreciate it, but the proles don't. Even if they actually don't, they can at least pretend to be like Jilly Goolden getting a sense of complex cocoa blossoms and coaly head.

Emperor's new clothes. Hear hear.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Modern art is what happened when painters stopped looking at girls.
</philistine>

Yeahbut have they got a better idea?

[T42]

As long as artistic DNA hackers don't give us girls who look like Modern Art.

[Ian H]

When art came to America.

A mere 105 years ago. Give it another 105 years and people might start to accept that not all 'art' has to be in the form of paintings representing real people, objects or scenes, framed and hung in galleries.

I find it interesting how some people have come to accept that visual art must be representational, when that is not demanded of aural art, music.

[hubner]

(1) it must take skill to conceive
(2) it must take skill to create
(3) it must be enjoyable for the 'consumer' to look at / experience.

The above hasn't been true in the art world for at least 100 years, as mentioned.

Of course, the art world is made up of a handful of people; artists, rich collectors, critics, museum directors. Where would Tracy Emin and Damien Hurst be if not for Charles Saatchi? The art market is basically a very small group of rich people trying to prove they they have taste, prestige and status.

If a painting by Van Gogh is sold for £100 million and it turns out to be a fake, does it suddenly become worthless when it's still the same painting?

When art came to America.

A mere 105 years ago. Give it another 105 years and people might start to accept that not all 'art' has to be in the form of paintings representing real people, objects or scenes, framed and hung in galleries.

I find it interesting how some people have come to accept that visual art must be representational, when that is not demanded of aural art, music.

There is a type of music that "ordinary" people like, ie music with lyrics ie songs, which could be said to be "representational".

[Ian H]

If a painting by Van Gogh is sold for £100 million and it turns out to be a fake, does it suddenly become worthless when it's still the same painting?

Its monetary value might change.

There is a type of music that "ordinary" people like, ie music with lyrics ie songs, which could be said to be "representational".

Words & music combined. 

And words are merely arbitrary sounds.

[mattc]

When art came to America.

A mere 105 years ago. Give it another 105 years and people might start to accept that not all 'art' has to be in the form of paintings representing real people, objects or scenes, framed and hung in galleries.

I find it interesting how some people have come to accept that visual art must be representational, when that is not demanded of aural art, music.

I know this is old fashioned, but I'm pretty strict about music having to actually sound like music. Others are welcome to listen/endure other "styles".

(is that what you meant?)

[Ian H]

I know this is old fashioned, but I'm pretty strict about music having to actually sound like music. Others are welcome to listen/endure other "styles".

(is that what you meant?)

I think that John Coltrane and Stockhausen sound like music, but no, that's isn't what I meant.  But you know that anyway.

[Mr Larrington]

I'm pretty sure that some of Sonic Youth's more, ah, experimental Stuffs, and that bit of John Cage they played on University Challenge the other week, don't.

[De Sisti]

Looks like the images have been 'paint-shopped' to me. Just sayin'.

[Cunobelin]

Looks like the images have been 'paint-shopped' to me. Just sayin'.

If only........

[Cunobelin]

Art is defined as (whatever).

Sorry, no. Art is all about that very human trait to scratch things on walls, fling faeces in pretty patterns, whatever. Some of it is going to be "good" art, some of it is going to be "bad", who knows, and who gives a flying? Some artists will be lucky enough to have their work appreciated and paid for in their lifetimes, some will have to wait until after they are dead, some won't and some won't ever be "appreciated" (ie, their art is good only in their own head, which is where it all starts).

In this case, I reckon it would have been pretty awesome to see, I'd hope it didn't do too much damage as it was taken off, but if it was equivalent to, say, 10 years of wind and rain, where's the harm in that? Chateaux and castles are 10 a penny, making it an alternative experience is no bad thing.

Ok, let me put it another way. To me, any art that deliberately attempts to stretch the definition of art has by definition already broken it.
What about Tracy Emin's untidy room, wasn't that the one where a cleaner tried to tidy it up because she didn't realise it was art - sorry, intended to be art? I would personally say the cleaner was right and that it needed tidying up.

I remember they used to use the Hansard at Southampton for Student's medical registration

They had a piece of art that was a tumbler with cotton buds in it

A couple of students not realising that.... used the cotton buds, and they had to get the artist back in to "re-install" the work

The other "installation" that is a con is this one:


1. Abandon your car on the grass outside the venue|:



2. Avoid parking tickets by claiming your poor parking is art: